Thread: Статья Илларионова

Guys, take a look at this report:
http://www.enlight.ru/camera/dprk/

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Lots, lots of sarcasm, I see...

My trademark

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I like how you copied one thing from the articles and left out everything else, which was the whole point of the article in the first place. Talk about misquoting!

No, what I was looking for were pure *facts* -- and what you're pointing to is author's *interpretation* of them. This is the important difference! Yes, of course: author can interpret (or misinterpret) facts in any way he want... but so can I.
So, lets look closer to facts and authors opinion...

Firstly, I wouldn't be looking for *facts* in articles that you disagree in for the first place. If you don't trust the author in the first place, why would you trust his numbers? Just a comment.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Further from the "Chinese penetration of North Korea".

(part of quote skipped...)

It puts those cold, hard numbers in some new light, no?

No, not quite.
As I said above, author can't deny the obvious numbers... but (yes, this is "pro-american" site, remember? ), he have freedom to make speculations and jump on conclusions So, to explain this facts:
1) He supposes, that China can have some political reasons to support N. Korea, besides pure economic ones. Maybe. Why not? I can remember a lot of countries (I can list them), supported by Europe or by USA by obvoiusly political reasons. Why China is worse?

So you agree. China is only subsidising the country for its own political benefits, not because it desperately needs N. Korean superior-quality cabbage. If a country A is just giving a life-line to country B, so it can survive, country B is in deep doo-doo. I do not want to be country B. (no matter which country B might be)

Originally Posted by Scorpio

2) He says: "collapse of another communist regime might have consequences for Chinese internal stability". Yes, China is interested in political stability of its neighbours. Quite as any sane country.

Perfect, more agreement. It's nice to be in agreement!

Originally Posted by Scorpio

3) But all of these can't explain, why Chinese *private sector* is making investments in N-Korean economy. The private enterprise doesn't care much about political interests, it needs profit! So, if *private Chinese company* is making investments in N. Korea... do I need to repeat what I said above?

pleeeeease! Don't tell me that the *private sector* is never a victim of political motivation. American private companies can not trade with Cuba. Norwegian companies can't sell whale meat to Europe. Russian companies with names sounding slightly similar gazprom can put political pressure on countries that start with the letter U. A company can only trade with a foreign country if their government allows it. A goverment can even encourage trade by reducing taxes, creating benefits etc. You think american private companies just automatically went in to Iraq for the rebuilding effort? No the government awarded contracts to the private companies (ie Haliburton). The American government put a huge tax on the steel coming from Europe to stimulate American steel industry, result: big losses in Europe.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

BTW, as obvious from the paragraph quoted, the author definitely need to read some basic books about economics. He can't see difference between "subsidies" ("...receives such a regular subsidy") and investments. He also don't seem to understand, what money he's talking about is not "quite affordable for China" -- but quite affordable even for *Chinese private sector*, which makes a difference.
4) Summary: the author is deeply insatisfied by the fact, what the N-Korean economy is still alive, and even growing -- and, worse of all, without USA participation! Depressing, isn't it?

Not really and the issue is not really what the author thinks. You are trying to convince me that North korea is a sweet an happy place, a place much better than Russia, for example, and if it is surviving solely on China's benevolence, then i find that hard to believe.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Now, lets talk about "houshold goods"...

Only a tiny fraction of all North Korean households own all these “contraptions”. In the mid-1990s, the average black market cost of the entire package was 30,000 won or, roughly, some 30 (!) times the monthly salary of an average worker.

First, in the "mid-1990s" -- means 10 years ago.
Second, do you know what "black market" is?
The "black market" is the place, where the people having *lots* of money (with not very clear origin) can buy anything they want, and quickly, but for a very high price. This doesn't mean, what people with less income can't afford this goods -- this only means, what purchasing them is more complicated, and may require more time and efforts. Anybody living in former USSR can explain in detail, what I'm talking about.

I know very well what a black market is, and it is close to what you described. A black market is a place you can buy anything you want ILLEGALY for a certain price. Anyway, what is your point?

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Even though the North began colour broadcasting before the South

A bit of shocking fact, isn't it?

Not really. Any state dictatorship is capable of astonishing (although this is really astonishing) accomplishments when the money and resources are put into it (the Pyramids, Chinese wall, St. Petersburg, etc. etc.) It would be interesting to know how many people could see the color tv when they started broadcasting Probably 1, and you know who

Originally Posted by Scorpio

the old-style black-and-white TVs still outnumber colour sets. Most of the TVs are old, imported from the “fraternal socialist countries” (especially Romania and the USSR) or locally assembled.

That's why I *like* the western consumer society. Anybody owning the TV-set older than several years is total loser, isn't he?

Believe, there's a lot of familes here, in Russia, who still owning and using old, Soviet-made TV sets. Most of the people I know perfectly can afford a newer TV, they just perfectly satisfied with old ones.

I don't even have a TV :P

Originally Posted by Scorpio

But the new North Korean capitalism of dirty market places, charcoal trucks, and badly dressed vendors with sacks of merchandise on their backs demonstrates one surprising feature: it has a distinctly female face. Indeed, women are overrepresented in the growing North Korean post-Stalinist economy.

Oh, how touching... "dirty market places", "charcoal trucks", "badly dressed vendors", "women are overrepresented", etc., etc.
But do you know how Chinese economics looked only 10 years ago? Exactly like North Korean is looking now, with dirty markets, charcoal trucks, women selling homemade food and so on. And in Russia in start of 90's everything was almost the same, except, probably, "charcoal trucks". So?

Yeah, so? You agree the situation is just as bad as China 10 years ago, and Russia. So why again do you want your country to be like North Korea? Why is it so much better?

Instead of disputing Author X of Blog X's comments, why don't you write why you think N. Korea has a much better state-model than Russia. It would be great to know!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Lots, lots of sarcasm, I see...

My trademark

My too!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Firstly, I wouldn't be looking for *facts* in articles that you disagree in for the first place. If you don't trust the author in the first place, why would you trust his numbers? Just a comment.

Strange logic. Yes, personally, I sometimes prefer to look for information for a quite biased source (like this article). And I have a quite obvious reason to do so: if I see some facts here, they have much more weight in my eyes.
For example, if I'll read about "$100 mln of Chinese investments" in some *pro-N. Korean* source, I'll probable have serious reasons to doubt: if this truth or pure propaganda? But if I read this digit in openly "anti-N. Korean" source -- I'm quite convinced it's true.
So, I *do* trust the author's *numbers* (because they are no way "his" numbers -- I'm quite sure there's a lot of other open sources to obtain them besides this article!), but I completely disagree with his attempts to interpret them (because can't find them satisfactory). I hope this makes my position clear.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

So you agree. China is only subsidising the country for its own political benefits, not because it desperately needs N. Korean superior-quality cabbage. If a country A is just giving a life-line to country B, so it can survive, country B is in deep doo-doo. I do not want to be country B. (no matter which country B might be)

Please, не надо передергивать! "China is only subsidising this country..." -- this is *your* point, not mine! I'm state China have *both* political and economical reasons to support "this country" (and now economical reasons seems to become prevalent...).
[/quote]

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

pleeeeease! Don't tell me that the *private sector* is never a victim of political motivation. American private companies can not trade with Cuba. Norwegian companies can't sell whale meat to Europe. Russian companies with names sounding slightly similar gazprom can put political pressure on countries that start with the letter U. A company can only trade with a foreign country if their government allows it. A goverment can even encourage trade by reducing taxes, creating benefits etc. You think american private companies just automatically went in to Iraq for the rebuilding effort? No the government awarded contracts to the private companies (ie Haliburton). The American government put a huge tax on the steel coming from Europe to stimulate American steel industry, result: big losses in Europe.

Of course, you are right: the political motivation is *possible*. This just don't mean it really *have place*, right?
The only thing lacking in your suppositions: a minimal amounts of facts, confirming the Chinese government really conducts the policy you're talking about. Do government, for example, decrease taxes for companies going to N-Korea, or use any other means of economic support for them? Even if it does, Lankov says nothing about it -- which is a pity, because he seems to be, at least, informed.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Not really and the issue is not really what the author thinks. You are trying to convince me that North korea is a sweet an happy place, a place much better than Russia, for example, and if it is surviving solely on China's benevolence, then i find that hard to believe.

Oh, sorry -- сплошные передергивания again! Where and when did I say "North Korea is a sweet and happy place"? Or "it's much better than Russia"?
The only things I want to say is: 1) N-Korea is much better place than mainstream propaganda depicting. (Which, considering the extremely dark colours this propaganda is using, really isn't so great achievement!) 2) And situation there is *improving*, at least slowly (or, maybe, even not so slowly?)

Now lets go back to your point (about "Chinese motivations").
The situation in N-Korea 5-10 years ago was definitely much worse than now. (Yes, this is true. The only thing sometimes forgotten to be mentioned in news reports, is what the main reason for Korean troubles was a series for *natural disasters*, most notable floods.) So, if China is so concerned about N-Korea... was it "helping" so much several years ago? No, I'm afraid not. However, *now*, when N-Korea is no more in so dire need of "help" -- China is "helping" much more, does it?
This fact seems weird in the light of favourite theory of yours. Alas, this normally means, what the theory itself is wrong.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I know very well what a black market is, and it is close to what you described. A black market is a place you can buy anything you want ILLEGALY for a certain price. Anyway, what is your point?

My point is: there is always different ways of purchising goods besides black market. Normally, this requires less money, but more efforts and/or time spend (for example, in very long queue).

So, it's bit naive to judge about average life level by black market's prices.

A crude analogy: there are a resaurants in Moscow, where a cup of coffee
cost $50 or even more. This obviously doesn't mean, what a normal budget person can't afford a cup of coffee. (S)he just can visit a place, where coffee is served for a more reasonable price.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Even though the North began colour broadcasting before the South

A bit of shocking fact, isn't it?

Not really. Any state dictatorship is capable of astonishing (although this is really astonishing) accomplishments when the money and resources are put into it (the Pyramids, Chinese wall, St. Petersburg, etc. etc.) It would be interesting to know how many people could see the color tv when they started broadcasting Probably 1, and you know who

Hmm, and *whom* this particular "state dictatorship" is trying to astonish?
The western observers? They aren't watching Korean TV at all, I'm afraid.
Their own citizens? So, they need to own color TV to be astonished, right?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

But the new North Korean capitalism of dirty market places, charcoal trucks, and badly dressed vendors with sacks of merchandise on their backs demonstrates one surprising feature: it has a distinctly female face. Indeed, women are overrepresented in the growing North Korean post-Stalinist economy.

Oh, how touching... "dirty market places", "charcoal trucks", "badly dressed vendors", "women are overrepresented", etc., etc.
But do you know how Chinese economics looked only 10 years ago? Exactly like North Korean is looking now, with dirty markets, charcoal trucks, women selling homemade food and so on. And in Russia in start of 90's everything was almost the same, except, probably, "charcoal trucks". So?

Yeah, so? You agree the situation is just as bad as China 10 years ago, and Russia. So why again do you want your country to be like North Korea? Why is it so much better?
Instead of disputing Author X of Blog X's comments, why don't you write why you think N. Korea has a much better state-model than Russia. It would be great to know!

Again, I did not say anything about "state model"! My point was (and remains): "North Korea is much better in life than presented in media" -- which does not mean, that this countries is better than Russia, or USA, or <insert any country you like here>.

But whence you're asking me... I have a serious doubts Russia currently have "state model" at all. (At least, working one.) So, it's not easy to compare.
Seriously, if N.Korea will have amount of natural resources comparable to Russia -- I have strong reasons to think, that people there will live much better than here.

BTW: MikeM, thank you for the link! Very interesting, especially photos.

The ball keeps rolling

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Firstly, I wouldn't be looking for *facts* in articles that you disagree in for the first place. If you don't trust the author in the first place, why would you trust his numbers? Just a comment.

Strange logic. Yes, personally, I sometimes prefer to look for information for a quite biased source (like this article). And I have a quite obvious reason to do so: if I see some facts here, they have much more weight in my eyes.
For example, if I'll read about "$100 mln of Chinese investments" in some *pro-N. Korean* source, I'll probable have serious reasons to doubt: if this truth or pure propaganda? But if I read this digit in openly "anti-N. Korean" source -- I'm quite convinced it's true.
So, I *do* trust the author's *numbers* (because they are no way "his" numbers -- I'm quite sure there's a lot of other open sources to obtain them besides this article!), but I completely disagree with his attempts to interpret them (because can't find them satisfactory). I hope this makes my position clear.

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. It is dangerous waters. Imagine this: "One can not blame the jews that they keep reminding us about the holocaust even though it didn't happen, since they have been suffering for many centuries and deserve attention." Here the fictional author is treating the nonexistance of the holocaust as a fact and trying to explain it. Put to the extreme to prove a point. First find out where the facts came from before taking them as "good" just because it seems contrary to the authors opinion.

I will read biased articles, but I would be very sceptical to put any serious faith in their figures, I just read it for a different point of view.

But those numbers might be right, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

So you agree. China is only subsidising the country for its own political benefits, not because it desperately needs N. Korean superior-quality cabbage. If a country A is just giving a life-line to country B, so it can survive, country B is in deep doo-doo. I do not want to be country B. (no matter which country B might be)

Please, не надо передергивать! "China is only subsidising this country..." -- this is *your* point, not mine! I'm state China have *both* political and economical reasons to support "this country" (and now economical reasons seems to become prevalent...).

Me? I am not twisting your words What do you mean "economical reasons seems to become prevalent"? The numbers you quote are XXX dollars, and you say it is entirely economical and not political? Or even a little mix, but mostly economical? How can you say that, what are you using to back this statement up? Especially when the very article you quote says the opposite!

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Of course, you are right: the political motivation is *possible*. This just don't mean it really *have place*, right?
The only thing lacking in your suppositions: a minimal amounts of facts, confirming the Chinese government really conducts the policy you're talking about. Do government, for example, decrease taxes for companies going to N-Korea, or use any other means of economic support for them? Even if it does, Lankov says nothing about it -- which is a pity, because he seems to be, at least, informed.

Well, Lankov and I don't seem to be the only people thinking there is political motivation

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3920&l=1
"Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Pyongyang in October 2005 and Kim Jong-il’s return visit in January 2006 underscored deepening economic relations. China is undertaking a range of infrastructure projects in and around North Korea and now accounts for 40 per cent of its foreign trade. Since 2003, over 150 Chinese firms have begun operating in or trading with North Korea. As much as 80 per cent of the consumer goods found in the country’s markets are made in China, which will keep trying gradually to normalise the economy, with the long-term goal of a reformed, China-friendly North Korea."

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?S ... 5129-8920r
"When Chinese President Hu Jintao visited North Korea last October, he agreed to provide the impoverished country with $2 billion in economic assistance."

etc.etc.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Oh, sorry -- сплошные передергивания again! Where and when did I say "North Korea is a sweet and happy place"? Or "it's much better than Russia"?
The only things I want to say is: 1) N-Korea is much better place than mainstream propaganda depicting. (Which, considering the extremely dark colours this propaganda is using, really isn't so great achievement!) 2) And situation there is *improving*, at least slowly (or, maybe, even not so slowly?)

Allow me to refreshen your memory:

Originally Posted by Ages Ago!

Originally Posted by Barmaley

Russia is one of them now. And yes, this politico-economic model can last for quite some time. In some OPEC countries it has survived for a third of a century; in Venezuela, for half a century. It can survive even without high prices for energy. Cuba and North Korea have even more impressive models, and they don't even have oil. And then, of course, there was the Soviet version of this model.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

So, maybe it is not so bad model at all?

The court finds the defendant guilty!

Imagine, I agree that 1) life probably isn't so bad in North Korea as *some* media reports (and please, don't use the word propaganda. It is the most naive word since the word "naive" itself) 2) Life *might* be improving, but I don't know.

What I don't agree is that 1) North Korea is a good government model 2)the people there are better off than for example in the USA

That's all. I am just disputing your original post. Then you had to frag all this "evidence" that life is so good in North Korea, when it can hardly even be called evidence. And that is why I am disputing your every point, I just love it

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Now lets go back to your point (about "Chinese motivations").
The situation in N-Korea 5-10 years ago was definitely much worse than now. (Yes, this is true. The only thing sometimes forgotten to be mentioned in news reports, is what the main reason for Korean troubles was a series for *natural disasters*, most notable floods.) So, if China is so concerned about N-Korea... was it "helping" so much several years ago? No, I'm afraid not. However, *now*, when N-Korea is no more in so dire need of "help" -- China is "helping" much more, does it?
This fact seems weird in the light of favourite theory of yours. Alas, this normally means, what the theory itself is wrong.

Why is my theory wrong? Look at China 10 years ago, and tell me that it even had the means to be a surrogate mother for a nation of impovered people oppressed by a dictator China is the one with the impressive growth!

Originally Posted by Scorpio

My point is: there is always different ways of purchising goods besides black market. Normally, this requires less money, but more efforts and/or time spend (for example, in very long queue).

So, it's bit naive to judge about average life level by black market's prices.

A crude analogy: there are a resaurants in Moscow, where a cup of coffee
cost $50 or even more. This obviously doesn't mean, what a normal budget person can't afford a cup of coffee. (S)he just can visit a place, where coffee is served for a more reasonable price.

The thing with black markets is that the goods they sell you usually can't buy in stores, it might just be ILLEGAL. Your analogy doesn't even hold the first water test because in Moscow $50 coffee cups are legal, while black markets are not. That is why they are called black. If sausages are on the black market it is eather because A) there are no sausages left B) it is illegal to buy sausages. If you see on the black market 300 times monthly salary for a color TV, you can bet your booties that there ain't color TVs in the homes of average N.Koreans!

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Hmm, and *whom* this particular "state dictatorship" is trying to astonish?
The western observers? They aren't watching Korean TV at all, I'm afraid.
Their own citizens? So, they need to own color TV to be astonished, right?

Duh... yes, both. If you can prove that your country is better than the rest by broadcasting in color first, heck! free points in the "we are the best government in the world" category. No, they do not need to own a color TV, just like the Russians didn't need to own a telescope to know about Gagarin's first flight. As you say, it is all propaganda (*shudder

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Again, I did not say anything about "state model"! My point was (and remains): "North Korea is much better in life than presented in media" -- which does not mean, that this countries is better than Russia, or USA, or <insert any country you like here>.

Well then SAY SO!

Originally Posted by Scorpio

But whence you're asking me... I have a serious doubts Russia currently have "state model" at all. (At least, working one.) So, it's not easy to compare.
Seriously, if N.Korea will have amount of natural resources comparable to Russia -- I have strong reasons to think, that people there will live much better than here.

Well, if North Korea had the same resources and was as big as Russia, we would have... Russia!

Sweet merciful crap, that's alot of quoting! Quoting makes me cry. You guys just need to get together and write a book -- at least then you'll profit off of it!

Originally Posted by Barmaley

Sweet merciful cr@p, that's alot of quoting! Quoting makes me cry. You guys just need to get together and write a book -- at least then you'll profit off of it!

What, now that is just propaganda from Barmland. I refuse to accept "facts" from such a person as Barm. You read your history, son and you will understand my point of view! SHEESH!

Oh yeah? Well, I call propaganda on your allegations of propaganda!

SHEESH

In Russian this word means this:

Фига?

Так точно

Гимназисты за ним,
Трубочисты за ним,
И толкают его,
Обижают его;
И какой-то малыш
Показал ему шиш,
И какой-то барбос
Укусил его в нос, -
Нехороший барбос, невоспитанный.

http://school.ort.spb.ru/library/olgatu ... ex0103.htm

If discussion wandered sooo offtopic... OK, maybe enough is enough.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

If discussion wandered sooo offtopic... OK, maybe enough is enough.

Especially since nobody has posted here for 3 weeks... But yes, any topic that I'm involved with does seem to have a tendancy to wander astray...hmmm...

I just wonder why you refreshed the topic for the purpose of pointing off-top out after the discussion had been abandoned for 3 weeks

Потому что.

Just so it wouldn't like he left the topic without having a final say

мир миру!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Just so it wouldn't like he left the topic without having a final say

мир миру!

Мука муке!

Originally Posted by mishau_

I just wonder why you refreshed the topic for the purpose of pointing off-top out after the discussion had been abandoned for 3 weeks

Well, I was ill for a couple of weeks, so I was offline. Without my participation this thread seems to die from natural causes.